JUN TIME LTD. and Others v. THE INCORPORATED OWNERS OF CARSON MANSION

No. A9971 of 1995

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

HIGH COURT

____________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1. In this case the Plaintiffs who effectively own a restaurant in a shopping centre sue the Defendant who are the incorporated owners which run the building. The cause of the dispute is about the disconnection of the air-conditioning to the restaurant. The Defendant's justification for disconnecting it is that they say that the Plaintiffs did not pay the management fees and secondly that the Plaintiffs, and this has been put forward more recently, have connected more units to the central air-conditioning system than they should have done . This the Defendant says overloads the system and prevents other people from having an adequate supply of air-conditioning. There is also in the background the fact that the Plaintiffs have installed some air-conditioning units of their own.

2. I should also mention that the question of the management fees is a matter of dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant and is not something that I would decide today. There is a considerable difference between the parties as to the amount that should be paid.

3. My view of the matter is that the Plaintiffs have come to court and have obtained substantially what they sought in the application, in other words, the re-connection of the air-conditioning units until trial.

4. Mr. Osmund Lam who appears for the Plaintiffs says very forcibly that the Plaintiff was forced to come to Court because of the Defendant's action and he again shows quite clearly that the Defendant has given the appearance at least of shifting its ground about the reason why the air-conditioning was disconnected, or should remain disconnected, and he points to the fact that the Plaintiffs gave the Defendant every opportunity to reconnect the air-conditioning units. As a result Mr. Lam says that the order for costs which should be made is that the Plaintiffs should get their costs in any event. Mr. Joseph Lam, however, for the Defendant says that the costs should be reserved or adjourned to the trial when the Court will be in a much better position to know where the rights and wrongs are.

5. I myself feel the correct order as it very often is on interlocutory injunction is that it should be that the winning party should get their costs in the cause. In this case I consider the Plaintiffs should get their costs in the cause. If they win the trial they will get their costs incurred in applying for the injunction. If they lose the trial, it will mean that their justification for obtaining the injunction was probably not valid and, therefore, they should not have obtained this interlocutory injunction as of right but only as a protective measure and in that case, I think it is fair that neither party should get its cost. Hence the order for costs, over the order which has been otherwise agreed between the parties, is that the Plaintiffs should get their costs in the cause.